Alternative engine configuration

[turbof1]

The TDs can only be employed within the framework of the current rules. If no technical "catch-all" rule can be used, you face a situation where you need to use the other routes to creating regulation.

I think 7.5 was quite important actually. If nothing else it kept a certain amount of power away from none-independent entities. I suspect that that pleasure is no longer in the hands of the FIA since cars will be regulation-wise faster in 2017, which is against the nature of atleast the "Mosley FIA" and in my opinion, also against the nature of the "Todt FIA", who made the sport slower for the exact same reason in 2014. I even suspect that 7.5 or its 2012 counterpart will have used to set the 2014 aero rules, as well as the exhaust position in 2012 (which although was considered as moveable aero in 2011, I don't really see how one could create a TD in that regard.).

[FoxHound]

I don't think the repercussions of 7.5 are significant. It basically just says the FIA can direct that performance be reduced through uniform aerodynamic changes.

Much more significant, in my view, are Charlie Whiting's technical directives that barely try to conform to basic logic. For instance, the rationale cited for banning FRIC and tuned mass dampers - "movable aero"- should also ban all sprung suspension components.

And this is the juncture where teams need to have more of a say.

These rules may have been dreamt up by teams, with some teams ready to pounce on utilising those laws or "wordings" to the full extent. Nature of the beast and always will be.
However, in the case of FRICS, this was a genuinely innovative idea that was adopted by a few teams.
Even in light of it's extended use in F1 for some years, the FIA impose a ban on ridiculous grounds.

One could even argue that high rake concepts such as the Red Bull design language we've seen for many years also falls well and truly foul of this ruling.

I do not discount that perhaps the FIA's hand was forced by some teams in asking for "clarification" of the rule...
Perhaps a team devised a way of asking the question which then led to the ban?

[bhall II]

Regardless of their merit, technical directives can be countermanded by the Strategy Group at any time if the teams so choose. However, Whiting's decisions are typically accepted with little protest, because there's no competitive difference between the outright ban of any given component and running anything other than the very best version of that component.

It's effectively 9/10 of the teams saying, "If we can't gain an advantage from it, no one should gain an advantage from it."

(It's cheaper, too.)

As to the power of Clause 7.5:



This is removing the beam wing or reducing the span of the front wing or reducing the chord of the rear wing. And despite the relative insignificance of such changes, they can only be implemented unilaterally if the teams fail to finalize a solution within three months.

If, through analogy, we consider the rest of Clause 7 to be Santa Clause - it directs that only the Technical Working Group (or Strategy Group) has the power to draft the verbiage of regulations, and only current competitors have the power to vote in the TWG/SG - 7.5 can be considered the tooth fairy.

[turbof1]

This is removing the beam wing or reducing the span of the front wing or reducing the chord of the rear wing. And despite the relative insignificance of such changes, they can only be implemented unilaterally if the teams fail to finalize a solution within three months.

So either way the FIA gets more or less done what it wanted. Either the TWG made the decision themselves to remove it, or they did not and then the FIA eventually did it themselves. You can quite imagine how such a conversation would have gone if the TWG resisted.
-FIA: "Hey guys, we want you to remove part X and Y because we find that you are going too fast and so we'll slow you down."
-TWG: "We refuse."
-FIA: "You refuse? Ok see you within 60 days. We'll not have one but 3 surprises for you to choose from." I think usually the TWG will have seen the futility of resistance and just did the FIA's bidding. It's a situation where indirect power is much more powerful then direct power.

Now that I think of it, doesn't that small imagined dialogue sound familiar?
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/sh ... php?t=8803

Better source: http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-a ... gulations/

More individual articles on the matter here: http://www.newsonf1.com/f1regs/f1regulationsann.htm

[bhall II]

Now that I think of it, doesn't that small imagined dialogue sound familiar?

The situation you referenced is exactly why I think the FIA should have a more active role in the process.

Even though the teams generally accepted the rationale for change, the required supermajority in favor of any specific proposal didn't exist. That's the sort of gridlock a more dictatorial approach would eliminate.

All the teams were prepared to agree the bodywork changes and tyre regulations contained in Package 2. However, opinions differed on the engines. The closest to the necessary 8 out of 10 votes was at the meeting of September 6, 2004, when the TWG voted 7 to 3 in favour of the Package 2 engine rules.

[...]

The introduction of a 2.4 litre V8 engine together with a number of restrictions concerning design and permitted materials.

Reason: reducing capacity is a sure way to reduce power (as repeatedly requested by the TWG), while technical restrictions will limit the rate of power increase. It is estimated that power will drop to about 700 bhp compared to the 1000 bhp that existing engines will reach by 2006.

[turbof1]

Now that I think of it, doesn't that small imagined dialogue sound familiar?

The situation you referenced is exactly why I think the FIA should have a more active role in the process.

Even though the teams generally accepted the rationale for change, the required supermajority in favor of any specific proposal didn't exist. That's the sort of gridlock a more dictatorial approach would eliminate.

All the teams were prepared to agree the bodywork changes and tyre regulations contained in Package 2. However, opinions differed on the engines. The closest to the necessary 8 out of 10 votes was at the meeting of September 6, 2004, when the TWG voted 7 to 3 in favour of the Package 2 engine rules.

[...]

The introduction of a 2.4 litre V8 engine together with a number of restrictions concerning design and permitted materials.

Reason: reducing capacity is a sure way to reduce power (as repeatedly requested by the TWG), while technical restrictions will limit the rate of power increase. It is estimated that power will drop to about 700 bhp compared to the 1000 bhp that existing engines will reach by 2006.

For the record, I do agree with you. I simply want to underline the difference in power back then compared to now.

[bhall II]

I don't think it was much of an exercise of power. The engine change was wanted (but could have been nullified through arbitration); the tire rule was ultimately reversed; and the aero changes were typical.

[turbof1]

I don't think it was much of an exercise of power. The engine change was wanted (but could have been nullified through arbitration); the tire rule was ultimately reversed; and the aero changes were typical.

I think it actually was, although not in the sense of the political madness we have now, but in a way of getting things decided and done. The system back then atleast ensured there would a solution at the end of the road, no matter what. To quote yourself:

That's the sort of gridlock a more dictatorial approach would eliminate.

I don't defend dictatorship in society, but in sports like these, dictatorship ironically keeps the whole thing functioning.

[NL_Fer]

Shall we add the last few technical posts to the general 1.6 V6 thread?

[bhall II]

I think it actually was...

I guess it's a subjective matter. For me, power is the ability to impose change without regard to pretext, and the FIA doesn't have that. Had its proposals in 2004 not been congruent with contemporary TWG thinking, the motions would have likely led to nowhere, because...

...the plan to move to 2.4-litre V8s in 2006 risked the FIA being taken to arbitration by several teams, a legal process which the federation would almost certainly have lost because of a clause written into the Concorde Agreement which stipulates that until the end of the agreement in 2007 F1 is for 3-litre V10 engines.

Since the teams were going in that direction anyway, it worked. It's (obviously) not always that simple, though.

[toraabe]

All this goes down to that Mr Eccelstone don't like that Mercedes is winning. But when Schumacher won with ferrari everything was ok.. . If Ferrari were in Mercedes position we would never been into this mess

I think Bernie was never a fan of the hybrids, and wanted them gone. It's not about Mercedes.

Actually it is .. ref eccelstone

http://www.grandprix247.com/2015/12/07/ ... in-future/

When you are saying

{ Ecclestone has told Die Welt that the biggest problem with F1 is Mercedes’ utter dominance, “It is basically nothing new, because we’ve seen it before with Ferrari. But it was different, actually. Mercedes’ domination is now so overwhelming that there is hardly a chance for anyone else.”

“Ferrari had a different feeling, a different presence. That is not to say that Mercedes has done anything wrong, but it is not good for the sport. It makes it boring,” he explained. “Their dominance is so great that many people watch the start of a grand prix and then switch off the television.” }

As I understrands If Ferrari were in Merc Position ok .. ..

[R_GoWin]

Incredible engine politicking article to come out in writing - its the sort of stuff you speak off air or wink winks and silent acknowledgement.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/sh ... archionne/

[FoxHound]

Incredible engine politicking article to come out in writing - its the sort of stuff you speak off air or wink winks and silent acknowledgement.

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/f1/sh ... archionne/

I posted the video the quote excerpts taken from (ZDF interview), check earlier in the thread.

Motorsportmagazine have had their take on it, and it's not too dissimilar to my own.
The standout points are:
1.The relationships behind the scenes. Dieter Mateschitz, Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone are all bosom buddies.
2.The whole Red Bull engine "crisis", was a political plan to force alternative engine plans onto the sport. With the article from Motorsportmagazine stating Max Mosley and Ecclestone as advisors to Red Bull's Mateshitz.
Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda and even Renault got played.
3. Todt is the main reason Ecclestone has not been successful, but this has changed now after the World Motorsport Council meeting. Result means more power and even the ability to impose rules without any team or manufacturer agreement.
4. Ferrari's Marchionne will not let this shizzle slide....and he is equally capable of getting teams, and manufacturers onboard for a showdown.

Now if Max calls their bluff, and loses....I'd love to see this faces of the Ecclestone/Mateschitz/Mosely axis.
I'd also like to know if there has ever been more done by the powers that be for a single team in the history of F1.
This overshadows Ferrari bias and then some!

[FW17]

I wonder who the allies of BE are, other than Frank Williams and Dieter Mateschitz?

Would they again merge the F1 and WEC engine rules again and cause a demise of a series like they did in 1992?

I don't think it will take too much tweaking of the rules to get the Porsche and Toyota engines as F1 compliant

[FoxHound]

I don't think it will take too much tweaking of the rules to get the Porsche and Toyota engines as F1 compliant

It would be nightmare. You'd also need to factor in that the WEC engines where designed around completely different cars, with differing requirements and different rules.
I'd go so far as to say it would probably be more expensive than the alternative engine, making it dead in the water before a cylinder is fired.